Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

North American Van Lines sues North America Prime, trucking competitor started by a former officer

26 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Plaintiff, North American Van Lines, has been providing transportation services since 1969. A former officer of Plaintiff started a competing transportation company called North America Prime Lines. Numerous cease-and-desist communications were sent but the parties weren’t able to resolve their differences.

However, there are numerous negative instances of consumer confusion (a few samples below) so this situation definitely requires resolution.

North America Van Lines, Inc. v. North America Prime Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:17-cv-00298-TLS-PRC
File Date: Friday, July 14. 2017
Plaintiff: North American Van Lines, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Siobhán M. Murphy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Defendant: North America Prime Inc., Ean Manning
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Paul R. Cherry

Complaint:

adidas sued for violating Jackie Robinson’s right of publicity

13 Thursday Jul 2017

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

This lawsuit involves adidas’ alleged infringement of the right of publicity of deceased baseball player Jackie Robinson.

The plaintiff, CMG Worldwide Inc., headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, is the exclusive worldwide agent and representative for the estate of Jackie Robinson.

adidas allegedly, without authorization from Plaintiff, created and promoted merchandise based on the 70th anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s first appearance as a Brooklyn Dodger. The products were promoted heavily by adidas and sponsored athletes on April 15, 2017…”Jackie Robinson Day.”

Plaintiff asks for an injunction against further sales, recovery for damages suffered, disgorgment of all of adidas’ profits and attorneys’ fees and costs, so there’s a lot on the line for adidas. Stay tuned for updates.

CMG Worldwide, Inc. v. adidas AG et al.

Court Case Number: 1:17-cv-02356-TWP-DWL
File Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Plaintiff: CMG Worldwide, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Theodore J. Minch of Sovich Minch, LLP
Defendant: adidas AG, adidas America, Inc.,  Does 1-10
Cause: False Endorsement, Unfair Competition, Violation of Right of Publicity, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Deception
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

 

USA Football asserts ownership of “U.S. National Team” trademark, loses governing authority

10 Wednesday May 2017

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This lawsuit involves ownership of the “U.S. National Team” trademark. Plaintiff USA Football, Inc., the official youth football development partner of the NFL, claims exclusive use of the “U.S. National Team” mark since 2011.

Defendant, the U.S. Federation of American Football, is working to organize its own football team to participate in The World Games 2017 (held in Wrocław, Poland from July 20 – July 30, 2017) as the “U.S. National Team.”

Complicating matters is the fact that Plaintiff has recently lost its standing as the national governing body of American football. The International Federation of American Football (IFAF) withdrew recognition of Plaintiff’s authority in the USA due to “multiple, continuous and ongoing violations of the IFAF Anti-Doping Code.” With the expulsion of Plaintiff from IFAF, it’s not completely clear which, if any, organization is authorized to assemble a U.S. team for international competitions.

This case should get interesting so stay tuned for updates.

USA Football, Inc. v. U.S. Federation of American Football

Court Case Number: 1:17-cv-01395-LJM-DKL
File Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Plaintiff: USA Football, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, Amie Peele Carter of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: U.S. Federation of American Football
Cause: Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment, Conversion, Deception, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Larry J. McKinney
Referred To: Denise K. LaRue

Complaint:

Garden Flag Manufacturer sues Former Reseller for Trademark Infringement, Cybersquatting

04 Thursday May 2017

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

This lawsuit involves a garden flag manufacturer and a former reseller that continued selling product without authorization, as well as registering various infringing domain names. The Defendants’ bad faith use of the domain names has already been deterring by a WIPO proceeding.

Toland Home Garden v. PH Technologies et al.

Court Case Number: 3:17-cv-00336-PPS-MGG
File Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Plaintiff: Toland International Ltd. and Marketing Resource Group, Inc. d/b/a Toland Home Garden
Plaintiff Counsel: Todd Gale, Jennifer Fraser of Dykema Gossett PLLC
Defendant: PH Technologies, LLC, Philip S. Horvath
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Unfair Competition, Federal Cybersquatting, Trademark Dilution, Injury to Business Reputation, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Unjust Enrichment
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint: 

 

GNARLY HEAD wine vs. GNARLY GROVE hard cider…are you confused?

02 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff Gnarly Head, a California winery, asserts that Columbus, Indiana’s Simmons Winery has adopted a confusingly similar trademark and trade dress with their new line of Gnarly Grove hard cider.

I’ll leave the question of confusion for you. What I’d really like to know is who is mixing wine and hard cider??? Tasty?

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-10-31-06-am

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-10-22-45-am

Delicato Vineyards v. Gnarly Grove Cider Co.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-02932-TWP-DKL
File Date: Friday, October 28, 2016
Plaintiff: Delicato Vineyards
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Cristina A. Costa of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP
Defendant: Gnarly Grove Cider Co.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Denise K. LaRue

Complaint:

Miami (OH) Student Apartments sued over ANNEX Trademark

21 Wednesday Sep 2016

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Since 2013, Plaintiff has used the trademark THE ANNEX in connection with nine student housing facilities in three states. Seven of the student housing facilities are in Indiana and one is in Marion, Ohio (one hour north of Columbus). Plaintiff has no trademark registration.

Defendant recently built a student housing facility in Oxford, Ohio (home of the Miami University RedHawks) called, you guessed it, Annex.

With plans to expand to other college towns, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant’s use of a similar name will cause consumer confusion. Unable to resolve their dispute with cease-and-desist communications, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit to assert its rights to THE ANNEX in the Midwest.

Whether they wind up being called “Annex” or not, the new Oxford apartments should do fine. A nice pool and allegedly the largest clubhouse in Oxford. Looking at their Facebook page though, it will be a big shame to lose of all the cool Annex swag. They even have an “Annex”-branded shuttle bus. Based on Plaintiff’s dependence on common law rights and Defendant’s already substantial investment, I could see the Oxford team putting up a strong defense.

Stay tuned for updates.

screen-shot-2016-09-21-at-6-53-25-am

Mecca Companies Inc. d/b/a Annex Student Living v. Trinitas Ventures LLC

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-02499-WTL-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Plaintiff: Mecca Companies Inc. d/b/a Annex Student Living
Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Story LLP
Defendant: Trinitas Ventures
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

ZIG-ZAG looks to smoke out counterfeiters in Indiana

18 Thursday Aug 2016

Posted by in Branding, Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trade Dress, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

This is an anti-counterfeiting action against an extensive list of defendants who allegedly manufacture, import and sell counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s ZIG-ZAG cigarette papers in Indiana.

As expected, the counterfeit products are “inferior, cheaper versions sold without any known quality control or authorization.”

Stopping counterfeiters is a difficult task and, as seen here, must often be done on a state-by-state basis.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 7.02.35 AM

North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. et al v. KPC Distributor Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00307-PPS-SLC
File Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Plaintiff: North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc.; National Tobacco Company, L.P.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gregory W. Pottorff, Adam Arceneaux of Ice Miller
Defendant: KPC Distributor Inc. et al.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Copyright Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Fishers sign company sues competitor for cybersquatting

13 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff, based in Fishers, Indiana, is in the business of graphic design, sign manufacturing, metal fabrication, and creating promotional material and apparel.

Plaintiff’s website is located at www.eye4group.com.

Defendant is in the business of sign making and associated tools and products and is a direct competitor of Plaintiff in the Indianapolis area.

Defendant allegedly registered the domain “www.eyefourgroup.com” on October 1, 2015 and directed all traffic to its own website. That’s a no-no.

The domain is currently not active.

Screen Shot 2016-07-13 at 4.55.16 PM

Eye 4 Group, LLC v. Indianapolis Sign Works Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01864-JMS-MPB
File Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Plaintiff: Eye 4 Group, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jennifer L. Mozwecz of SRM Law, Joe Duepner of Duepler Law, LLC
Defendant: Indianapolis Sign Works Inc., Andrew Chapman
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Deception, Conversion, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Cybersquatting, Violation of the CyberPiracy Prevention Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Great Divide Brewing sues Red Yeti Brewing over Yeti trademarks

06 Monday Jun 2016

Posted by in Branding, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Denver-based Great Divide Brewing Company has been using the registered trademark YETI in connection with “Beer and Ale” since 2005. Specifically, Great Divide has a range of imperial stouts utilizing the Yeti word mark and a design mark of the outline of a yeti, the pose closely emulating the gait from the famous Bigfoot video. Great Divide’s yeti is usually white on packaging and marketing materials, but sometimes red.

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 6.22.07 AM

Jeffersonville, Indiana-based The Red Yeti, a restaurant/brewpub serving a limited selection of its own beer (currently a porter and hefeweizen), recently celebrated its second anniversary. Their logo is, not surprisingly, a red yeti in the typical walking pose.

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 6.17.42 AM

When Red Yeti failed to satisfactorily meet Great Divide’s cessation demands, this lawsuit was filed. Stay tuned for updates.

Great Divide Brewing Company v. Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:16-cv-00084-TWP-DML
File Date: Friday, June 3, 2016
Plaintiff: Great Divide Brewing Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael W. McClain, Robert W. DeWees, III of McClain DeWees, PLLC
Defendant: Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Deceptive Trade Practices
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Indiana Botanic Gardens files lawsuit to protect EUCAMINT trademark

01 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This trademark dispute between Hobart, Indiana-based Indiana Botanic Gardens and a California defendant involves the use of the trademark EUCAMINT in connection with camphorated ointments. The Plaintiff has used its trademark since 1925.

The Defendant has been using the EUCAMINT mark in connection with a eucalyptus shower mist since as early as 2013.

Camphor used to be made by distilling the bark and wood of the camphor tree. Today, camphor is chemically manufactured from turpentine oil. It is used in products such as Vicks VapoRub. –WebMD

Indiana Botanic Gardens Inc v. Snyder Manufacturing Corporation

Court Case Number: 2:16-cv-00197-JD-PRC
File Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Plaintiff: Indiana Botanic Gardens, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: David C. Brezina, Boris Umansky of Ladas & Parry LLP
Defendant: Snyder Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Eurospa Aromatics d/b/a Eurospa Chemicals
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Paul R. Cherry

Complaint: